|
Continued from Page 1
The ordinance also required Chicago Motor Bus to pay 3
per cent of its gross receipts during the first five years, but not less
than $10,000 any one year for the privilege of operating its bus lines.
During the second five years it would pay 3% per cent, annually, with a
$11,000 minimum. During the final five years of the agreement Chicago Motor
Bus was required to pay 4 per cent of the gross with the minimum amount set
at $12,000. After giving the commission the required $25,000 down payment,
the Conklins contracted for the construction of 40 busses and 10 spare power
units with the Gas-Electric Motor Bus Company at a total cost of $370,000.
In September, 1916, Chicago Motor Bus filed a petition
with the Public Utilities Commission for a certificate of convenience and
necessity for the operation of its busses over the lines specified in the
Lincoln Park ordinance, representing that its buses would be ready for
service the following February (1917). A new certificate of convenience and
necessity was thereupon granted Chicago Motor Bus on January 15, 1917, to
operate its fleet on Chicago’s north side.
On January 6, 1917 the Roland R. Conklin applied for a new
certificate to operate its busses over the streets and boulevards on
Chicago’s south side, as the certificate previously granted on December 31,
1914, was about to expire due to the fact that Chicago Motor Bus had not yet
begun its business in the southern half of the city. The certificate was
reissued on March 7, 1917 by the South Park Commissioners providing that
Chicago Motor Bus operate its busses over the boulevards, streets, and parks
designated.
A certificate to operate under a number of streets not
covered by the Park Commission was applied for, however objections from a
group of citizens located on Woodlawn Avenue prompted a hearing to be
scheduled with the Public Utilities Commission on April 25, 1917. On the day
of the hearing Chicago Motor Bus withdrew its application to operate on
Woodlawn avenue, and as no other objections had been made, a commissioner
inquired if any one present objected to the pending issuance of the
certificate of convenience and necessity.
Much to everyone’s surprise, the counsel for a
previously unknown firm, the Chicago Stage Company, announced that said
company objected, and stated it had that day filed its application for a
certificate of convenience and necessity to operate motor busses over
substantially the same streets as the Chicago Motor Bus Company.
The Chicago Stage Company had been organized just one
day previous, by Chicago transportation interests, in order to try to get
its own certificate of convenience and necessity for the operation of motor
busses on the very same routes proposed by Chicago Motor Bus.
Attorneys for the two opposing firms filed objections
to the granting of the certificate of convenience and necessity to the
other. A flurry of hearings before the commission followed in which volumes
of evidence, both oral and documentary, was presented.
A news item likely provided by Chicago Stage interests appeared in the May 5, 1917 Electric Railway Journal:
“Motor Buses Proposed for Chicago. — The Chicago Stage
Company, an Illinois corporation, backed by the New York Transportation
Company, which owns the Fifth Avenue Coach Company, has made application to
the Chicago authorities for about 60 miles of motor-bus routes over the
boulevards and park systems there. The officers of the Chicago company are
Richard W. Meade, president; Samuel E. Morrow, secretary, and George L.
Willems, treasurer.
“These gentlemen occupy similar positions with the New
York Transportation Company. In making application in Chicago the company
has specified a 10-cent fare, has asked for a twenty-year franchise, and has agreed to
guarantee minimum payments to the municipal authorities of more than
$2,700,000. This is along the lines of the recent proposals made by the
Fifth Avenue Coach Company for additional routes in New York City.”
The Chicago Motor Bus Company was featured in the May 15, 1917 Commercial Car Journal:
“thus gradually cutting down the time between the
vehicles, with the knowledge, that when the fleet of 50 machines is in
operation, a 3 to 6-minute schedule will be maintained.
“With the full complement of 50 motor ‘buses in
operation, a portion of the service will be “Express,” to operated from
Devon Avenue, Wilson Avenue and Diversey Parkway to the “Loop,” a distance,
as the crow flies, of about seven miles. This part of the service will make
no stops between the northern terminals and Randolph Street.
“… ary of the loop. A City-bound express service will
be furnished from 6 until 9 o’clock in the morning, while one
“Homeward-bound” will leave the “Loop” beginning at 4:30 in the afternoon
and continue until 7 at night. The service will operate continuously from
6:30 A.M. until1 1:30 in the morning. As yet no schedule has been made for the
running of 'owl' 'busses.
“Seats for All
“The carrying capacity of these 'busses will be restricted to actual seating
capacity, something unheard of in transportation since Chicago was called
Fort Dearborn. The inside seats will accommodate 22 passengers, while there
are seats on the upper deck for 20 more.
“The vehicle weighs 10.200 lb. and yet is the lightest,
per passenger, ever manufactured. The driving units are manufactured by the
Gas-Electric Motor Corp, 336 Avenue B, New York, and in the event of
accident only a slight delay will be possible as the vehicles are in two
units, and when the service is in full operation provisions will be made to
replace either unit expeditiously whenever trouble may happen.
“The 'busses are the latest word in motor coach construction. The bodies
were built by the St Louis Motor Car Co. from designs by Roland R Conklin
and Harold B. Weaver, who have achieved an epoch in public vehicle
construction by providing Chicago with a “stepless” bus. The body color
scheme is fawn with maroon and scarlet trimming, presenting a most artistic
appearance, in fact the company went to considerable expense to…”
“‘Safety First’ will be an asset of the corporation, as
they require all operating employees, whether chauffeurs or conductors, to
submit to the most rigid physical and mental examination. Notwithstanding
the fact that all chauffeurs employed are trained men they will nevertheless
receive special instructions before they are permitted to operate the
‘busses. The conductors will serve a probationary course in the company’s
school in order that every patron may receive courteous treatment.
“It is the intention of the company to provide a number
of special busses for social events. The interiors of these will be
especially decorated as to
“The Chicago Motor 'Bus Co.'s garage on Broadway, just
north of Rosemont Avenue, is a new one-story structure of brick, steel,
cement and glass, erected at a cost of $40,000. The floor area is 100 x 150
ft., with ample space for 50 motor buses. An administration building in the
rear and fronting on Rosemont Avenue, now under construction, will be two
stories high and will include under its roof a repair plant, club rooms,
reading rooms, lockers and shower baths for employees. It will cover a
ground area of 85 x 180 ft. The ground cost for these two buildings was
$40000, while the administration building represents an investment of
$100,000.”
At the Parks Commission's July 12, 1917 hearing, the
applications of the two corporations were consolidated by the commission and
thereafter heard together. Hearings were had on various dates until October
9, 1917, when the hearings were concluded and the case taken under
advisement by the commission.
On January 8, 1918, the Parks Commission entered its
order and decision in favor of the Chicago Stage Company. After setting out
a history of the controversy between the two corporations, the commission
found “that the Chicago Stage Company, by reason of prior experience and
technical skill of its officers and directors and by reason of its financial
ability, is in a position to adequately serve the public needs for motor
transportation along and over the streets, highways, boulevards, and
parkways of the city of Chicago,” and granted the Chicago Stage Company a
certificate of necessity and convenience for the operation of its busses
over designated boulevards and public ways on the south side.
The Public Utilities Commission issued a further order
declaring that the public convenience and welfare did not require the
operation of two competing lines of motor busses, in effect denying the
Chicago Motor Bus Company the right to operate on the south side.
Not surprisingly, Conklin’s attorneys appealed to
the circuit court of Sangamon county, where the two cases were treated and
heard as one and the orders and decisions of the Public Utilities Commission
were affirmed. The appeal went to trial in the Supreme Court of Illinois on
February 20, 1919, the contention of the Chicago Motor Bus Company being
“the action of the commission was unreasonable and an unauthorized exercise
of arbitrary power.”
Chicago Stage’s counsel insisted the order of the
commission dated January 8, 1918, was justified by the evidence as follows;
“The stock of the Chicago Stage Company is owned by the New York
Transportation Company, the directors of which are wealthy men and are
largely the directors of the Chicago Stage Company. The New York
Transportation Company is a New Jersey corporation and owns the stock of the
Fifth Avenue Coach Company of New York. The New York Transportation
Company's stock, or a large amount of it, is owned by the Interborough
Consolidated Corporation. The Fifth Avenue Coach Company has been for some
years operating motor bus lines in New York City.”
Chicago Stage Company’s R.W. Meade testified that: “he
was president and general manager of the New York Transportation Company,
the Fifth Avenue Coach Company, and the Chicago Stage Company.” He also
testified as to the amount of time given and the efforts required in
developing and placing on a sound financial basis the business of the Fifth
Avenue Coach Company.
Meade further stated that he had investigated the
Chicago field and familiarized himself with the type and cost of bus
required. He further testified that Chicago Stage had the necessary means to
install and place its motor bus service in operation due to an August 15,
1917 agreement between it and the New York Transportation Company, whereby
the latter company agreed to furnish the Chicago concern, if necessary,
$2,000,000 for use in the development and operation of its bus lines in
Chicago.
The superintendent of the Chicago Motor Bus Company
testified that from March 25 to August 31, 1917, the number of passengers
carried was approximately 1,950,000. They had purchased property and built a
garage at a cost of about $150,000, its total expenditures including the
cost of the motor coaches being approximately $600,000. The firm had, for
some months, been operating 40 busses on Chicago’s north side and the
Commissions had received no complaints concerning the firm.
The court stated: “It seems obvious to us that in view
of the fact that appellant had been so long in the field, had spent large
sums of money in securing the right to operate and in developing its
business, as against the Chicago Stage Company, which had just come into
existence and had spent no money in the enterprise, the former should in all
Justice be entitled to the preference unless the public interests would be
best served by the latter company. In other words, if it appeared that
appellant had for months served the public efficiently and satisfactorily on
the north side and that it was able to do so on the south side, to deny it a
certificate and award it to the Chicago Stage Company would seem to be so
arbitrary as to be unreasonable.”
Consequently the justices ruled in favor of Conklin
and the Chicago Motor Bus Company finding that “If both companies
were equally capable of rendering adequate service to the public, fairness
and Justice required that preference should have been given appellant
(Chicago Motor Bus), in view of the time and money it had spent in
developing its business and rendering adequate service to the public.”
The Public Utilities Commission and the Chicago Stage
Company rejected the findings of the Supreme Court and scheduled a new
hearing on the matter for January 20, 1920. A transcript of the Public Utilities Commission's
findings, contained in Vol. 7, Opinions and orders of the Illinois Public
Utilities Commission, published in 1920, follows:
In the Matter of the Petitions of the CHICAGO MOTOR BUS
COMPANY and the CHICAGO STAGE COMPANY Relative to Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity. 6066, 6642, Consolidated.
PRACTICE—MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE ON DECISION OF SUPREME
COURT—DENIAL.
1. The motion of a bus company that it be
granted a. certificate upon the decision of the Supreme Court which set
aside a former order of the Commission refusing: such certificate as being
unreasonable, was denied by the Commission, it appearing from the decision
of the Supreme Court that no positive direction was contained therein
requiring the granting of such certificate ; that the jurisdiction of the
Commission was not questioned, and that no determination of the Commission
as to questions of fact were declared to be against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
PRACTICE—COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OP QUESTION OF
FACT— PRIMA FACIE TRUE.
2. The terms of the Public Utility Act charge the
Commission with the duty of determining questions of fact, which when
determined, shall lie held prima facie to be true and hence a decision by
the Supreme Court setting aside an order of the Commission as being
unreasonable in the absence of a. finding or any reference to the
Commission's order as being contrary to the weight of the evidence, simply
requires the Commission to review the evidence already heard and such
further evidence as may be proffered in an effort to determine just what
should be the proper and reasonable order In the case.
EVIDENCE —CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY —
INABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY OPERATE.
3. Where the evidence unquestionably indicate that the
type of motor vehicle in use by a bus company is largely responsible for the
inability of such company to successfully operate, both from a business and
financial point of view, because of the excessive cost of maintenance of the
equipment, the Commission can not approve the granting of a certificate as
being in harmony with the public convenience and necessity.
SERVICE—INEFFICIENT OPERATION—PUBLIC NECESSITY.
4. While it is practically impossible for any number of
buses to materially reduce the congested condition of traffic in a great
city during the morning and evening hours, still a bus company can not be
said to adequately serve the public necessities when It does not even
provide the number of buses which it agreed to operate, and operates only on
a ten minute schedule.
EVIDENCE—CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY—PRIOR
BUSINESS FAILURES OF OFFICIAL OF APPLICANT.
5. Evidence produced at a hearing involving an
application for a certificate concerning the financial and business ventures
of the managing official and president of the bus company seeking such
certificate tending to show that his previous affairs had in many cases
resulted in financial loss, was not given great consideration but must be
referred to in connection with publications and public advertisements of the
prospectus of a corporation which is tailing over the property and Interests
of the applicant, of which he is also the president.
PRACTICE—ISSUING CERTIFICATE—APPLICANT UNFIT
FINANCIALLY.
6. A motor bus company which issues a prospectus and
other advertisements which are misleading and designed to entrap the unwary
into investing monev in the valueless stock of a holding company with no
assets back of its enormous capitalization but those of one operating
company which has never paid operating expenses and whose assets are covered
by a blanket mortgage, is not a fit and proper instrumentality to be
entrusted with the construction, equipment and operation of a public motor
bus service, and the Commission will not grant a certificate to such an
applicant.
PRACTICE—DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE—DUTY OF COMMISSION IN
CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC INTEREST.
7. Where the evidence conclusively shows that an
applicant is totally unsound financially and unable to efficiently operate a
public motor bus service, the Commission in the exercise of its independent
judgment, is unwilling to give such a company the sanction of its approval
in its operations, and believes it would be derelict in the performance of
its duty if it failed to protect the public against the methods as pursued
by such an enterprise, and therefore, after a careful review of all the
previous evidence introduced in the cause and all the other and different
evidence subsequently produced, must refuse to grant a certificate to such a
company.
By The Commission:
This case arose by virtue of a petition for a
certificate of convenience and necessity filed by the Chicago Motor Bus
Company to operate motor bus lines in the city of Chicago over certain
routes therein designated, which certificate was subsequently granted to the
applicant to operate on the north side of the city of Chicago, and the
Chicago Motor Bus Company, after some delay, began the operation of such a
system of motor bus transportation over certain routes from the down town or
loop section of the city of Chicago; thence north to certain designated
points, and has since continued thi operation of such motor bus business
over the said routes north.
Later the Chicago Motor Bus Company filed an
application for a certificate of convenience and necessity to extend its
motor bus line over certain streets and avenues through what is generally
known as the south side territory of the city of Chicago. An intervening
petition was filed by the Chicago Stage Company, opposing the application of
the Chicago Motor Bus Company for an extension of its business to the south
side of the city of Chicago, and seeking on its own behalf a certificate of
convenience and necessity authorizing it to operate a motor bus line over
practically the same routes covered in the application of the Chicago Motor
Bus Company.
For the sake of brevity, the Chicago Motor Bus Company
will hereafter be referred to as the "Bus Company," and the Chicago Stage
Company will be referred to as the "Stage Company."
A protracted hearing was conducted by the Commission on
the application of the two companies, resulting in the orders entered
January 8, 1918, granting the application of the Stage Company and denying
the application of the Bus Company to the certificate for operation on the
south side of the city of Chicago.
The Bus Company appealed from the decision of the
Commission to the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, which court affirmed the
decisions of the Commission; and from said court the Bus Company appealed to
the Supreme Court, which court in a decision handed down February 20, 1919,
reversed the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, and set aside the orders and
decisions of the Commission, Chicago Bus Co. v. Chicago Stage Co., 287 111.,
320.
Upon the cases being re-docketed and set down for
further hearing before the Commission, the cases were consolidated for the
purpose of such hearing and will be considered and decided by the Commission
as a consolidated case, there appearing no necessity for separate orders
under the present circumstances and condition of the record.
[1] Counsel for the Bus Company made formal application
for a certificate upon the decision of the Supreme Court, setting up the
claim that such decision left nothing for the Commission to do but grant
such application; and while from a careful reading of the decision of the
Supreme Court in said case it might be inferred the court was of the opinion
on the then state of the record that such certificate should have been
granted to the Bus Company and denied to the Stage Company, yet the
Commission, being impressed with the knowledge that the Public Utilities Act
charges the Commission with the duty and the responsibility of determining
questions of fact, which questions of fact when so determined by the
Commission shall be held prima facie to be true and as found by the
Commission, and no order of the Commission may be set aside unless it
clearly appears such order was against the manifest weight of the evidence
or that the same was without the jurisdiction of the Commission, and it
being further provided by said Public Utilities Act that orders or decisions
of the Commission shall be held to be prima facie reasonable and the court
in its decision of this case, the jurisdiction of the Commission not being
questioned, made no finding that the decision of the Commission was against
the manifest weight of the evidence, but set aside the orders of the
Commission for the reason that
[2] said orders impressed the court as being
unreasonable; and there being no positive direction in such decision of the
Supreme Court to grant the certificate to the Bus Company, the Commission
was of the opinion that under the said decision of the court it should
review the evidence already heard and hear such new evidence as might be
proffered in order to determine just what should be the proper and
reasonable order to enter under all the evidence which might be before the
Commission, and so denied the motion of counsel for the Bus Company that it
be given the certificate upon the decision of the Supreme Court.
The entire record of the previous hearing was
introduced into and became a part of the record in this case and much
additional evidence in the nature of exhibits was introduced by both the Bus
Company and the Stage Company, and much oral evidence was introduced by both
parties relative to the character of the equipment and the cost of
maintenance and operation as shown by the actual operations of the Bus
Company during the time it has been in operation on the north side of
Chicago.
It is undisputed that the Bus Company has not succeeded
even under favorable circumstances and without competition in this line in
conducting its business at a profit. Its reports to the Commissioners of
Lincoln Park and its balance sheets for the years since operation began
disclose the fact that at no time has the company been making operating
expenses.
The balance sheet of the Bus Company for the period
ending December 31, 1917, shows a net loss from operation of $22,712.04.
(Stage Company Exhibit 3, page 2.) The balance sheet of the Bus Company for
the period ending March 1, 1918, shows a net loss of $50,650.32. (Stage
Company Exhibit 4.) The balance sheet of the Bus Company for the period
ending June 30, 1918, shows a net loss of $50,547.92. (Stage Company Exhibit
6.) The balance sheet of the Bus Company for the six months ending December
31, 1918, shows a net loss of $60,956.74. (Stage Company Exhibit 9.) The
balance sheet of the Bus Company for the period ending March 31, 1919, shows
a net loss of $80,610.87." (Stage Company Exhibit 11.) It is however true
that the balance sheet of the Bus Company as of August 31, 1919, indicates a
reduction of said deficit to the sum of $25,595.84.
The motor buses in operation by the Bus Company are of
a new and experimental type, and different from the usual and ordinary type
of motor vehicles. The buses are what is known as "front drive" vehicles, as
distinguished from the rear drive used on all ordinary automobiles, and
indeed on all motor vehicles except certain motor trucks designed for heavy
traffic and where the load is "dumped" in the process of unloading. In
addition this motor bus has what is called a detachable front unit, the
theory being to facilitate repairs in case any portion of the mechanism
should get out of order, or should an accident occur to the body of the bus,
the front unit not having been injured may be attached to another body and
thereby retained in' service, and a similar arrangement might be made should
the front unit or mechanical part of the bus get out of order the body might
be attached to another front unit and so continued in service.
This type of construction necessarily results in the
load being pulled by the mechanism instead of being pushed as in the
ordinary automobile where the mechanical driving force is centered around
the rear axle and the driving force applied to the rear wheels of the
vehicle, the front wheels being used directly under the control of the wheel
for steering purposes. The bus therefore consisting of two distinct parts,
it necessarily follows that the lower frame work of the vehicle is radically
different from the ordinary type of motor driven vehicles. There is no
"chassis" in the ordinary acceptance of that term, which is the lower frame
work of the ordinary automobile, and there is accordingly no equitable
distribution of the load which is permissible in the motor vehicle of the
usual construction. The entire load of the upper deck of the car is
sustained by the front and rear ends of the car, the sides being constructed
of light material and perforated by the windows and door, offering little if
any support to the body of the vehicle.
It was alleged with much force that such method of
construction was dangerous to the safety of passengers riding within the car
and on' the upper deck by reason of the apparent top heavy construction of
such a vehicle without adequate distribution of the strains incident to such
a load, and that such method of construction resulted in the constant
breaking of the windows in the sides of the vehicle caused by the straining
or buckling of the sides of the vehicle by reason of the light construction
of the vehicle and the absence of an underlying chassis or frame work
extending under the entire body of the vehicle, as in the ordinary motor
vehicle.
The evidence relative to the construction and operation
of the buses of the Bus Company and the cost of maintenance, as compared
with the buses of the Fifth Avenue Stage Company of New York City, which are
the type proposed to be used in Chicago by the Stage Company, was gone into
exhaustively by both parties to this hearing, and they were given every
opportunity to disclose fully the true situation relative to the earning
ability of these different types of motor buses and the comparative cost of
operation.
[3] It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the
type of motor bus in use in Chicago by the Bus Company is largely
responsible for the unquestioned inability of the Bus Company to
successfully operate it from a business and financial view point. The
excessive cost of the "maintenance of equipment" item in the statement of
operation of the Bus Company is in the opinion of the Commission largely
responsible for the inability of the Bus Company to make operating expenses.
Exhibit Nos. eight (8) and twelve (12) introduced by
the Stage Company are as follows:
STAGE EV. 8. 5-13-19—CHICAGO MOTOR BUS COMPANY
STATEMENT OP OPERATION FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1918.
| |
|
Amount |
Per bus mile in cents |
| GROSS EARNINGS. |
$ |
|
|
| Revenue from transportation |
$ |
244,495.70 |
35.79 |
| Special bus revenue |
$ |
385.00 |
.06 |
| Advertising revenue |
$ |
4,175.00 |
.61 |
| Total transportation revenue |
$ |
249,055.70 |
36.46 |
| Non-operating revenue |
$ |
562.50 |
|
| Total revenue |
$ |
249,618.20 |
36.54 |
| OPERATING EXPENSES. |
|
|
|
| Maintenance of way and structures |
$ |
124.87 |
.03 |
| Maintenance of equipment |
$ |
72,439.61 |
10.60 |
| Depreciation reserve |
$ |
22,131.78 |
3.23 |
| Gasoline expense |
$ |
29, 856.52 |
4.37 |
| Conducting transportation |
$ |
84.083.92 |
12.31 |
| Traffic expenses |
$ |
2,125.41 |
.31 |
| General and miscellaneous expenses |
$ |
30,186.94 |
4.42 |
| Taxes |
$ |
8,952.67 |
1.31 |
| Total operating expenses |
$ |
249,901.72 |
36. 58 |
| Not earnings (loss) |
$ |
283.52 |
.04 |
| FIXED CHARGES. |
|
|
|
| Interest on funded debt |
$ |
5,491.06 |
.80 |
| Interest on unfunded debt |
$ |
983.46 |
.15 |
| Discount on funded debt |
$ |
3,650.18 |
.53 |
| Total fixed charges |
$ |
10,125.30 |
1.48 |
| Net income (loss) |
$ |
10,408.82 |
1.52 |
| Revenue bus miles |
|
683,209 |
|
I, John C. Cannon, secretary for The Commissioners of
Lincoln Park, do hereby certify that the document designated as Stage
Company Ex.. No. 8, 5-13-19— is a true and correct copy of a report made by
the Chicago Motor Bus Co. to the Commissioners of Lincoln Park. (Signed) John C. Cannon, Secretary.[seal]
STAGE COMPANY EX. 12, 5-13-19—STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THREE MONTHS ENDING MARCH, 1919.
| |
|
|
cents per mile |
|
|
cents per mile |
|
|
cents per mile |
|
|
cents per mile |
| Gross Earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Transportation revenue |
$ |
29,667.90 |
30.30 |
$ |
26,825.80 |
28.07 |
$ |
35,626.10 |
32.56 |
$ |
92,119.80 |
30.54 |
| Special bus revenue |
$ |
|
|
$ |
34.00 |
.03 |
$ |
44.00 |
.03 |
$ |
78.00 |
.03 |
| Total Operating Revenue |
$ |
29,667.90 |
30.30 |
$ |
26,859.80 |
28.10 |
$ |
35,670.10 |
32.59 |
$ |
92,197.80 |
30.57 |
| Non-operating revenue |
$ |
239.10 |
.25 |
$ |
93.75 |
.10 |
$ |
93.75 |
.09 |
$ |
426.60 |
.14 |
| Total Revenue |
$ |
29,907.00 |
30.55 |
$ |
26,953.55 |
28.20 |
$ |
35,763.85 |
32.68 |
$ |
92,624.40 |
30.71 |
| OPERATING EXPENSES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Maintenance of ways and structures |
$ |
28.30 |
.03 |
$ |
21.85 |
.02 |
$ |
9.89 |
|
$ |
60.04 |
.02 |
| Maintenance of equipment |
$ |
10,511.73 |
10.74 |
$ |
9,069.76 |
9.49 |
$ |
11,213.89 |
10.26 |
$ |
30,795.38 |
10.21 |
| Depreciation reserve |
$ |
3,201.00 |
3.26 |
$ |
3,137.52 |
3.28 |
$ |
3,547.05 |
3.24 |
$ |
9,885.57 |
3.28 |
| Gasoline expense |
$ |
4,124.31 |
4.21 |
$ |
3,887.45 |
4.07 |
$ |
4,452.28 |
4.07 |
$ |
12,464.04 |
4.13 |
| Conducting transportation |
$ |
11,536,67 |
11.80 |
$ |
11,128.15 |
11.64 |
$ |
12,676.82 |
11.58 |
$ |
35,361.50 |
11.72 |
| Traffic expenses |
$ |
346.13 |
.25 |
$ |
3.50 |
|
$ |
17.25 |
.01 |
$ |
366.80 |
.12 |
| General and miscellaneous expense |
$ |
4,656.69 |
4.76 |
$ |
4,927.82 |
5.16 |
$ |
5,396.95 |
4.94 |
$ |
14,981.46 |
4.97 |
| Taxes |
$ |
1,199.01 |
1.22 |
$ |
1,133.31 |
1.19 |
$ |
1,552.77 |
1.42 |
$ |
3,885.09 |
1.29 |
| Total operating expense |
$ |
35,623.84 |
36.39 |
$ |
33,309.36 |
34.85 |
$ |
38,866.76 |
35.52 |
$ |
107,799.88 |
35.74 |
| Net earnings (loss) |
$ |
5,718.84 |
5.84 |
$ |
6,355.81 |
6.65 |
$ |
3,102.91 |
2.84 |
$ |
15,175.48 |
5.03 |
| FIXED CHARGES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Interest on funded debt |
$ |
1,055.00 |
1.08 |
$ |
1,055.00 |
1.10 |
$ |
1,055.00 |
.97 |
$ |
3,165.00 |
1.05 |
| Interest on unfunded debt |
$ |
76.00 |
.08 |
$ |
41.00 |
.04 |
$ |
40.98 |
.03 |
$ |
157.98 |
.05 |
| Discount on funded debt |
$ |
718.53 |
.73 |
$ |
718.53 |
.75 |
$ |
718.53 |
.66 |
$ |
2,155.59 |
.72 |
| Total fixed charges |
$ |
1,849.53 |
1.89 |
$ |
1,814.53 |
1.89 |
$ |
1,814.51 |
1.66 |
$ |
5,478.57 |
1.82 |
| Net income (loss) |
$ |
7,566.37 |
7.73 |
$ |
8,170.34 |
8.54 |
$ |
4,917.42 |
4.50 |
$ |
20,654.05 |
6.85 |
| Revenue bus miles |
$ |
96,609.00 |
|
$ |
95,580.00 |
|
$ |
109,431.00 |
|
$ |
301,620.00 |
|
I, John C. Cannon, secretary for The Commissioners of
Lincoln Park, do hereby certify that the document designated as Stage
Company Ex. No. 12, 5-13-19— is a true and correct copy of a report made by
the Chicago Motor Bus Company to The Commissioners of Lincoln Park. (Signed) John C. Cannon, Secretary.
A study of these exhibits indicates that for the period
ending December 31, 1918, the cost of maintenance of equipment was 10.60
cents per bus mile and the operation of the system resulted in a net loss of
1.52 cents per bus mile. For the period ending March, 1919, the cost of
maintenance of equipment was 10.21 cents per bus mile and the operation of
the system resulted in a net loss of 0.85 cents per bus mile. The cost of
maintenance of equipment of the Fifth Avenue Stage Company of New York City
was proven to be 3.96 cents per bus mile.
Bus Company Stipulation exhibit Nos. one (1) and two
(2) are herewith presented in order to show in the most favorable light for
the Bus Company its claims for the months indicated thereon, which are the
spring and summer months, and should show the best report for the Bus
Company. The cost of maintenance then as shown in said exhibits, indicates a
constant and gradual increase in the cost of maintenance account.
BUS CO. STIPULATION EXHIBIT 1—CHICAGO MOTOR BUS COMPANY
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR FOUR MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31,
1918-1919.
|
GROSS EARNINGS |
|
1918 |
cents per bus mile |
|
1919 |
cents per bus mile |
|
Transportation revenue |
$ |
223,697.10 |
38.08 |
$ |
282,673.20 |
48.46 |
|
Special bus revenue |
$ |
379.00 |
.06 |
$ |
17.00 |
.00 |
|
Advertising revenue |
$ |
3,450.00 |
.59 |
$ |
686.50 |
.12 |
|
Total operating revenue |
$ |
227,526.10 |
38.73 |
$ |
283,376.70 |
45.58 |
|
Non-operating revenue |
$ |
375.00 |
.07 |
$ |
439.12 |
.08 |
|
Total revenue |
$ |
227,901.10 |
38.80 |
$ |
283,815.82 |
48.66 |
|
OPERATING EXPENSES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance of way and structures |
$ |
281.96 |
.05 |
$ |
313.22 |
.05 |
|
Maintenance of equipment |
$ |
56,820.16 |
9.67 |
$ |
60,920.45 |
10.44 |
|
Depreciation reserve |
$ |
18,879.66 |
3.21 |
$ |
18,641.94 |
3.20 |
|
Gasoline expense |
$ |
25,129.73 |
4.28 |
$ |
22,467.98 |
3.85 |
|
Conducting transportation |
$ |
71,697.81 |
12.21 |
$ |
83,095.40 |
14.25 |
|
Traffic expenses |
$ |
1,304.12 |
.22 |
$ |
135.67 |
.02 |
|
General and miscellaneous expense |
$ |
18,082.09 |
3.08 |
$ |
22,445.63 |
3.85 |
|
Taxes |
$ |
7,266.33 |
1.24 |
$ |
10,945.32 |
1.88 |
|
Total operating expenses |
$ |
199,461.86 |
33.96 |
$ |
218,965.61 |
37.54 |
|
Net earnings |
$ |
28,439.24 |
4.84 |
$ |
64,850.21 |
11.12 |
|
FIXED CHARGES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest on funded debt |
$ |
1,987.50 |
.34 |
$ |
2,620.00 |
.45 |
|
Interest on unfunded debt |
$ |
1,053.76 |
.18 |
$ |
1,280.00 |
.22 |
|
Discount on funded debt |
$ |
891.12 |
.15 |
$. |
2,874.12 |
.49 |
|
Total fixed charges |
$ |
3,932.38 |
.67 |
$ |
6,774.12 |
1.16 |
|
Net income |
$ |
24,606.86 |
4.17 |
$ |
58,076.09 |
9.96 |
|
Revenue bus miles |
$ |
587,389.00 |
|
$ |
583,303.00 |
|
This is to certify that the above is a. correct
statement of the income account of the Chicago Motor Bus Company for the
four months ended August 31. 1919. (Signed) Theodore Werner, Auditor. Subscribed and sworn
to before me this 8th day of September, 1919. (Signed) Paul E. Hartung, Notary Public.
Much evidence was introduced by the Stage Company on
the question of the ability of the Bus Company to serve its patrons on the
north side of the city and divers and various witnesses testified to a count
of the number of prospective passengers unable to secure accommodation on
the buses during the morning and evening rush hours in city traffic.
[4] This character of evidence is somewhat instructive
of the crowded condition of all vehicular traffic during such hours and it
is indeed doubtful if any number of buses which might be operated at such
hours would materially reduce the congested condition of traffic in the
morning and evening hours in a great city and especially in the city of
Chicago. It is however true that the Bus Company has not provided the number
of buses which it agreed to operate on the north side in Chicago and it
stands to reason that a ten minute schedule will not and does not adequately
serve the public necessities. The Fifth Avenue Stage Company in New York
operates during the rush hours on what amounts to virtually a thirty second
schedule on Fifth Avenue, and while it cannot serve all its prospective
patrons it has reached the natural limit of service, and allows the general
public its natural right to a portion of the public street for private cars
and other vehicles.
BUS CO. -STIPULATION EXHIBIT 2—CHICAGO MOTOR BUS
COMPANY STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE MONTHS OF JULY AND AUGUST, 1919.
|
GROSS EARNINGS |
|
July 1919 |
cents per bus mile |
|
August 1919 |
cents per bus mile |
|
Transportation revenue |
$ |
82,342.00 |
51.87 |
$ |
78,704.90 |
51.19 |
|
Special bus revenue |
$ |
10.00 |
.01 |
$ |
7.00 |
.00 |
|
Advertising revenue |
$ |
202.25 |
.13 |
$ |
484.25 |
.31 |
|
Total operating revenue |
$ |
82,554.25 |
52.01 |
$ |
79,196.15 |
51.50 |
|
Non-operating revenue |
$ |
93.75 |
.06 |
$ |
157.87 |
.10 |
|
Total revenue |
$ |
82,648.00 |
52.07 |
$ |
79,354.02 |
51.60 |
|
OPERATING EXPENSES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance of way and structures |
$ |
60.05 |
.04 |
$ |
97.65 |
.06 |
|
Maintenance of equipment |
$ |
16,067.87 |
10.12 |
$ |
18,311.58 |
11.92 |
|
Depreciation reserve |
$ |
5,120.91 |
3.23 |
$ |
4,876.95 |
3.17 |
|
Gasoline expense |
$ |
6,661.80 |
4.20 |
$ |
6,344.28 |
4.12 |
|
Conducting transportation |
$ |
24,010.03 |
15.13 |
$ |
23,987.40 |
15.60 |
|
Traffic expenses |
$ |
|
|
$ |
73.40 |
.05 |
|
General and miscellaneous expense |
$ |
5,721.14 |
3.60 |
$ |
5,848.52 |
3.80 |
|
Taxes |
$ |
3,108.97 |
1.96 |
$ |
3,123.05 |
2.03 |
|
Total operating expenses |
$ |
60,750.77 |
38.28 |
$ |
62,659.83 |
40.75 |
|
Net earnings |
$ |
21,897.23 |
13.79 |
$ |
16,694.19 |
10.85 |
|
FIXED CHARGES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest on funded debt |
$ |
265.00 |
.17 |
$ |
265.00 |
.18 |
|
Interest on unfunded debt |
$ |
640.00 |
.40 |
$ |
640.00 |
.41 |
|
Discount on funded debt |
$ |
718.53 |
.45 |
$. |
718.53 |
.46 |
|
Total fixed charges |
$ |
1,623.53 |
1.02 |
$ |
1,623.53 |
1.05 |
|
Net income |
$ |
20,273.70 |
12.77 |
$ |
15,070.66 |
9.80 |
|
Revenue bus miles |
$ |
158,730.00 |
|
$ |
153,761.00 |
|
This is to certify that the above is a correct
statement of the income account of the Chicago Motor Bus Company for the
months of July and August, 1919. (Signed) Theodore Werner, Auditor. Subscribed and sworn
to before me this 8th day of September, 1919.
(Signed) Paul E. Hartung, Notary Public.
[5] In the previous hearing of this case much evidence
was introduced of the earlier financial ventures of Roland R. Conklin, and
the various business affairs, corporate and otherwise, with which he was
connected, the purpose evidently being to show that many of them resulted in
financial loss to those who invested therein. The Commission did not give
much consideration to that evidence and in all probability it would not be
referred to in this order were it not for the publications and public
advertisements of the prospectus of the so-called national Motor Bus
Corporation which is being promoted by "The Boughton Company," apparently a
dealer in investment securities.
Roland R. Conklin is president of the National Motor
Bus Corporation and was the owner of the entire capital stock of the Chicago
Motor Bus Company, except certain qualifying shares held by directors. The
other corporate officers of the National Motor Bus Corporation are the same
as the officers of the Chicago Motor Bus Company.
The National Motor Bus Corporation is organized with an
authorized capital stock of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000), of
which seven million, five hundred thousand dollars ($7,500,000) is
outstanding, and three million, five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000)
is offered to the public for subscription. The prospectus states that it is
organized to acquire the securities and business of the Chicago Motor Bus
Company, St. Louis Motor Bus Company, New Jersey Motor Bus Corporation, and
to form and operate motor bus companies in leading American cities.
The St. Louis Motor Bus Company is a corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Missouri with an authorized capital
of two thousand dollars ($2,000). The New Jersey Motor Bus Corporation is a
corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey with an
authorized capital of two thousand dollars ($2,000). This record is silent
on the question of either of the last named corporations owning any
property, franchise or other thing of value other than its capital stock,
and the only logical inference which may he drawn from such a state of the
record is that neither corporation is possessed of anything of value other
than its capital stock. Under these 'circumstances the Commission is forced
to conclude that the only element of value behind the twenty-five million
dollars ($25,000,000) of authorized capital stock of the National Motor Bus
Corporation is the capital stock of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, which is
one million dollars ($1,000,000), and in view of the result of operations
during the past two years is of extremely doubtful value, in addition to
which this Commission has authorized the execution of a mortgage or deed of
trust against all the real estate and tangible property of the Chicago Motor
Bus Company for the principal sum of two hundred thousand dollars
($200,000).
Roland R. Conklin is president of the Chicago Motor Bus
Company and president of the National Motor Bus Corporation. If, as stated
in the prospectus, the National Motor Bus Corporation owns the entire
capital stock of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, Mr. Conklin must have
conveyed such stock to it and the Chicago Motor Bus Company and its
officials are chargeable with notice of the claims being made in its behalf
by the holding company, the National Motor Bus Corporation, and by the
Boughton Company, its agent and financial representative.
[6] It requires but the most perfunctory examination of
the records and reports of the Chicago Motor Bus Company to know the claims
set forth in the prospectus and other advertisements of the National Motor
Bus Corporation, as shown by Stage Company stipulation Exhibits 1 to 7, both
inclusive, are misleading and seem designed to entrap the unwary into
investing money in the valueless stock of a holding company with no assets
back of its enormous capitalization but those of one operating company which
has never paid operating expenses, and whose assets are covered by a blanket
mortgage.
It seems almost incredible that a group of business men
would permit the statements contained in Stage Company Stipulation Exhibit
Xo. 2 to be issued and sent through the United States mail. The sale of such
stock without a license or permit therefor is expressly prohibited by the
Illinois Securities Law.
The prospectus states that four hundred thousand
(400,000) shares of stock of the National Motor Bus Corporation have been
issued in order to secure the stock of the Chicago Motor Bus Company and the
stock of the two paper corporations organized under the laws of New Jersey
and Missouri. This statement may be true and as an indication of the value
of such stock it need only be considered that four million dollars
($4,000,000) of such stock was delivered in exchange for the one million
dollars ($1,000,000) capital stock of the Motor Bus Company, plus the two
thousand dollars ($2,000) capital stock of the New Jersey Motor Bus
Corporation, and the St. Louis Motor Bus Company.
[7] The Commission has given full and careful
consideration to the decision of the Supreme Court in this case, as reported
in 287 Ill., page 320, but feels there is other and different evidence in
this record from what it contained when first decided. The Commission fully
appreciates its duty to comply with positive directions of the Supreme
Court, and will do so but, we are not willing, in any matter involving the
exercise of our own independent judgment, to place upon the financial
operations of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, as disclosed by the record in
the case, the sanction of our approval. We believe that we would be derelict
in the performance of our duty if we were to fail to protect the public
against such methods as those pursued by the promotors of that enterprise,
and we will not share in any responsibility for their continuance. After
careful consideration of all the evidence in this record, the Commission
hereby declares the following to be its findings in this case:
(1) The Chicago Motor Bus Company, by reason of the
faulty and expensive type of motor bus proposed to be used, cannot
adequately and properly serve the public convenience and necessity over the
proposed routes on the south side of Chicago.
(2) The type of motor bus now used and as proposed to
be used by the Chicago Motor Bus Company is of such faulty construction that
the expense of maintaining it in repair is out of all proportion to the
total cost of operation, and greatly in excess of what a motor bus of the
regular type of construction would cost.
(3) The officer, operatives and employees of the
Chicago Motor Bus Company are not possessed of the requisite technical skill
and experience to properly and economically operate a motor bus system such
as will be necessary to properly serve the public as proposed in Chicago.
(4) The type of motor bus used and as proposed to be
used in Chicago by the Chicago Motor Bus Company cannot be properly and
efficiently operated, and said Motor Bus Company in continuing to use such
type of bus and in proposing to use a similar type of bus on the south side
of Chicago is not in a position to properly and adequately serve the public
by so doing.
(5) The operations of the Chicago Motor Bus Company on
the north side of Chicago have not been conducted in an efficient and
economical manner, and with the type of motor bus proposed to be used cannot
be so conducted, and the public has not been and cannot be properly and
efficiently served with such a type of motor bus so managed and operated,
and the Commission is of the opinion that to extend the operation of such a
system would not be in the interest of public service.
(6) The Chicago Motor Bus Company has not been
successful financially and the said system has been operated at an annual
financial loss, and there is no apparent reason to conclude that an
extension of such operation to the south side in Chicago would result in any
financial change.
(7) The Chicago Motor Bus Company, by reason of its
financial difficulties and the financial management which resulted in the
transfer of its direction and control to the National Motor Bus
Corporation, is not a fit and proper instrumentality to be entrusted with
the construction, equipment and operation of an extension of the motor bus
service to the south side of the city of Chicago.
(8) The representations made to the public by the
alleged present owner of the stock of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, by
means of advertisements in the public press of the financial standing and
alleged successful operation of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, render said
Chicago Motor Bus Company not the proper corporation to be entrusted with a
certificate of convenience and necessity as requested in this proceeding.
(9) The public interest will be best served by denying
the application of the Chicago Motor Bus Company for a certificate of
convenience and necessity to extend its motor bus service to the south side
of the "city of Chicago over the routes' as designated, and the said
application accordingly should be denied.
(10) The Chicago Stage Company, by reason of long
experience, technical skill of its officers and directors, and sound
financial backing, is in better position to properly serve the public in
conducting a motor bus business than is the Chicago Motor Bus Company.
(11) The vehicle or bus proposed to be used by the
Chicago Stage Company is of the regular auto type of construction, and has
been and may be regularly, continuously, efficiently, and economically
maintained and operated, and is of a far superior type of motor bus to that
used and proposed to be used by the Chicago Motor Bus Company.
(12) The Chicago Stage Company, being composed of
practically the same officers, directors and managers who for many years
have successfully, carefully, honestly, efficiently, and economically)
managed and conducted the operation of the Fifth Avenue Stage Company
in New York City, may safely and honorably be entrusted with the operation
of a motor bus business over the designated routes in the south side
district of the city of Chicago, and that the certificate of convenience and
necessity should be granted to the Chicago Stage Company as applied for.
(13) The public convenience and the public interest
will be served by granting a certificate of convenience and necessity to the
Chicago Stage Company as requested.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Public Utilities
Commission, of Illinois, that the application of the Chicago Motor Bus
Company for a certificate of convenience and necessity to operate on the
south side of the city of Chicago, be and the same is hereby, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of convenience
and necessity is hereby granted to the Chicago Stage Company to operate a
motor bus system on the south side of the city of Chicago, as applied for."
The American Motor Bus Co. builds the cars for the Chicago Motor Bus Co.
The Company and its subsidiaries own two modern,
fire-proof buildings, the garage on Broadway, and the Operating Department
on Rosemont Avenue, and have arranged to acquire a site for a new terminal
on Clark Street near Wilson Avenue.
1918 New York City Directory of Directors:
Roland R. Conklin, 1 Wall St., New York, New York
Central Cuba Sugar Co., Dir.
Chicago Motor Bus Co.. Pres, and Dir.
Gas-Electric Motorbus Corporation, Dir.
Jucaro & Moron Railway Co., Pres, and Dir.
Lincoln Zinc & Smelting Corporation, Pres, and Dir.
N.Y. Motor Bus Co., Pres. and Dir.
North Shore Estates. Pres, and Dir.
Stanley L. Conklin, 1 Wall St., New York, New York
Alsop Non-Reusable Bottle Corporation, V. Pres, and Dir.
American Motor Bus Co., Pres, and Dir.
Chicago Motor Bus Co., Dir.
Gas-Electric Motorbus Corporation, Pres. and Dir.
Lincoln Zinc & Smelting Corporation. V. Pres, and Dir.
N.Y. Motor Bus Co., Incorporated, Dir.
North Shore Estates, Dir.
Rosemary Park Inc., Dir.
Haydock H. Miller, 1 Wall St., New York, New York
American Motor Bus Co., Sec'y, Treas. and Dir.
Gas-Electric Motorbus Corporation, Sec'y, Treas. and Dir.
Lincoln Zinc & Smelting Corporation, Sec'y, Treas. and Dir.
N.Y. Motor Bus Co., Incorporated. Sec'y, Treas. and Dir.
North Shore Estates, Sec'y. Treas. and Dir.
Rosemary Park Inc., Dir.
Harvey P. Miller, 583 Riverside Dr., New York, New York
N. Y. Motor Bus Co., Incorporated. Dir.
C.O. Ball,. 20th St. and Avenue B., New York, New York
Gas-Electric Motorbus Corporation. Dir.
A.J. Besuzzi, 1 Wall St., New York, New York
American Motor Bus Co., Dir.
N. Y. Motor Bus Co., Incorporated. Assistant Sec'y, Assistant Treas. and Dir.
Harold В. Weaver, 1 Wall St., New York, New York
Chicago Motor Bus Co., Dir.
Gas-Electric Motorbus Corporation. Dir.
Lincoln Zinc & Smelting Corporation. Dir.
Manhattan & Queens Traction Corporation, V. Pres, and Dir.
N. Y. Motor Bus Co., Incorporated. Dir.
Frederick F. Judd, of Judd & Co, 140 Nassau St., New York, New York
N. Y. Motor Bus Co., Incorporated. Dir.
Cecil A. Clarke, Sec'y of W. A. Hutcheson & Co., Incorporated. 140 Broadway.
American National Motor Bus Co., Pres, and Dir.
Central Nueva Paz 1014, Incorporated. Sec'y and Dir.
Jucaro & Moron Railway Co., Sec'y, Treas. and Dir.
N.Y. Motor Bus Co., Incorporated., Treas. and Dir.
Vol. 7 No. 15 pt. II of Documents of the Senate of the State of New York,
published in 1917 contained the current New York Motor Bus Co.'s vital
statistics:
NEW YORK MOTOR BUS COMPANY, INCORPORATED
Incorporated December 19, 1912. Motive power intended:
Gasoline, electricity or both. Routes projected: From 14th street to 191st
street, Manhattan, via various streets and avenues not definitely
determined, at the time it made application for a franchise which it has not
yet obtained.
1917-1918 Balance Sheet
| Assets |
June 30,1917 |
June 30,1918 |
Increase or Decrease |
| Cash |
$ |
1,840.47 |
$ |
5.52 |
$ |
D 1,834.95 |
| Organization |
$ |
106,575.41 |
$ |
240,917.52 |
$ |
134,342.11 |
| Total |
$ |
108,415.88 |
$ |
240,923.04 |
$ |
132,507.16 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Accounts Payable |
$ |
44,515.88 |
$ |
177,023.04 |
$ |
132,507.16 |
| Common Stock |
$ |
63,900.00 |
$ |
63,900.00 |
$ |
.00 |
| Total |
$ |
108,415.88 |
$ |
240,923.04 |
$ |
132,507.16 |
Officers— President, Roland R. Conklin; Secretary and Treasurer, Lehman Weil.
Directors— Roland R. Conklin, Stanley L. Conklin, Harold B. Weaver, Lehman
Weil, A. J. Besuzzi, Fred F. Judd, William R. Willcox, Bainbridge Colby,
Harvey P. Miller.
Main Business Office.— 1 Wall street, New York City.
Report verified by Roland R. Conklin, President, July 3, 1918.
The following prospectus appeared in the August 20,
1919 Pittsburgh Gazette Times:
“First Offering
“$3,5000,000 Capital Stock of the National Motor Bus
Corporation. Par Value $10. Authorized Capital $25,000,000 (2,500,000
Shares) $7,500,000 Outstanding, Including this Issue. Full Paid and
Non-Assessable. All Common Stock, No Bonds. Transfer Agent: Registrar &
Transfer Co., 120 Broadway, N.Y. Registrar: Empire Trust Co., 120 Broadway,
N.Y.
“Property: This Corporation owns the entire capital
stock of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, successfully operating 50
double-deck buses on the North Side of Chicago, which in 1918 covered
1,411,789 miles, carrying 4,571,374 passengers.
“Additional Equipment: From the proceeds of this issue,
it is the intention of the management immediately to increase equipment to
130 buses, install a new service on the South Side and give Chicago a
thoroughly modern and satisfactory Motor Bus System.
“Arrangements are also under way to establish Motor Bus
Systems in St Louis and Newark, connecting the business sections with the
residential districts. Other cities have given assurances of hearty support
to similar plans as soon as they can be perfected.
“Earnings: The Corporation will have in operation a
minimum of 250 buses in the three cities mentioned as soon as deliveries can
be obtained. The earnings per bus per annum are conservatively estimated at
$9,300, which indicate net earnings from operation of approximately
$2,321,000. Exclusive license rights have been acquired by the Corporation
to a new ‘stepless’ Motor Bus with enclosed stairway to the upper deck. This
upper deck is covered, permitting the operation of the bus to its full
capacity regardless of weather. This is swung so low that it will pass under
trolley wires and low bridges with entire safety to passengers.
“The exceptional future for a system of modern motor
buses in leading cities cannot be over-emphasized, Motor bus organizations
in London,. Paris, Chicago and New York are enjoying remarkable prosperity.
Buses are becoming increasingly popular and profitable as a means of
passenger transportation.
“We advise the purchase of this stock. Application will
shortly be made to list it on the New York Curb and other markets.
Subscriptions will be entered and orders executed as received subject to
allotment.
“Subscription Price $7.50 a Share. The Boughton Company
Incorporated, Investment Securities, 71 Broadway.”
September 9, 1919 New York Times:
“Net earnings of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, a
subsidiary of the National Motor Bus Corporation, increased $33,466, or 77
per cent in the four months ended with August, compared with the
corresponding 1918 period.”
Sept 19, 1919 New York Times:
“Orders 80 Buses for Chicago.
“The National Motor Bus Corporation has placed an order
with the American Motor Bus Company in Chicago for eighty motor buses, which
will be used in conjunction with buses already operating in Chicago. A
contract for an additional 120 cars is now pending. It is proposed to use 50
of these in St Louis and 70 in Newark.”
November 2, 1919 New York Times:
“The Boughton Company, Inc. is issuing a booklet entitled ‘The Motor Bus
Idea.’ It gives fact concerning the National Motor Bus Corporation.”
Feb 1, 1920 Motor West:
“Large Capacity Motor Bus.; Chicago Trying Out Vehicle Designed to Reduce
Congestion in Business Section — Carries 60 Passengers
“RESIDENTS of Chicago recently were surprised to see on
Michigan Boulevard a brand-new and striking type of motor vehicle—a motor
bus with a covered upper deck practically enclosed in glass. The new vehicle
has the front-wheel drive, the floor on a level with the curbing for
convenience and speed in taking on and off passengers, and the covered
straight stairway which is safer than the winding and exposed one. The new
bus seats sixty and, while the increased seating capacity is 18 per cent
above the open-top type, in actual service the new model shows in comparison
an average increase to date of 29 per cent of passengers carried, due
undoubtedly to the greater number of protected seats available.
“The length of the car is 25 feet, the width 7 feet 6
inches; height from roadway when unloaded, 12 feet 11 inches, and 12 feet 8
inches when filled. The wheel-base is 176 inches; height of lower deck from
roadway, 12 ¼ inches. Both decks are lighted brilliantly by a generator
driven by the engine. The vehicle is heated by exhaust gases from the engine
which pass through pipes placed near the floor in the lower interior of the
car. The front tires are of the 6-inch single type, while those in the rear
are double and have a total tread of 12 inches. The power unit is
the American Motor Bus Co.'s standard type of front-wheel drive, made
detachable, and with a constant mesh transmission. The worm drive also is
used. The brakes are on the rear wheels and are placed so as to be applied
approximately to 500 square inches of braking surface.
“The low-hung body allows the passenger to enter or
leave the bus directly from the surface of the sidewalk. There are 41
windows, 15 on the lower and 26 on the upper deck, thus affording
practically an open vehicle during pleasant weather.
“The advantages of this new type of bus are: The
capacity to carry a larger number of passengers with practically no increase
in dimensions; it is capable of operation in any kind of weather or climate;
it enables the operator to obtain a maximum revenue from any given route by
providing increased accommodations during peak hours of traffic demands with
a number of units less than that required at present, reducing not only the
cost of the investment, but the maintenance and operating costs in relation
to the number of passengers carried; it tends to minimize the probability of
congestion in traffic by providing a means to transport passengers in larger
numbers in a vehicle which is flexible in its ability to seek the point of
least resistance in its progress through a congested district.”
March 1, 1920 Motor West:
“Use of Double-deck Buses Increasing
“The double-deck motor bus, with glass-enclosed upper
deck, appeared in Chicago not long ago. In Omaha, late in January,
the American Motor Bus Co. of New York installed eight lines of
double-deckers, to run to South Omaha, Dundee, Benson and Florence.”
The
American Motor Bus Story Is Continued HERE
© 2004 Mark Theobald - Coachbuilt.com
|
|
|
